Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Advertisements

I’m posing this question because it was posed to me. Actually, it was not a question; it was an accusation made by Rabbi Stuart Federow of Congregation Sha’ar Shalom in Clear Lake, TX. I had made the statement that Jesus was a model of non-violence. Federow’s jaw dropped and he began to list all the ways in which Jesus was violent, especially the temple incident when Jesus upset the tables of the moneychangers and drove out the animals being sold for sacrifice. According to the rabbi, this event proved that Jesus had a violent streak.

While I don’t have time to deal with all the charges Federow made, let me consider the temple incident and ask whether Jesus acted violently on this occasion.

You may recall that the temple incident is recorded in all four Gospels. The Synoptics place the episode late in the story right before Jesus’ execution. John tells the story early in his account. The majority of scholars follow the Synoptics and take it as an event late in Jesus’ life. Others think it is possible Jesus “cleansed the temple” twice: one early in his ministry and the other right before he died. Clearly, powerful people would have been upset with what Jesus did, and it is likely to have been the catalytic event that led to his execution by the Romans.

I suggest the best way to understand the temple incident is as a prophetic act. Prophets not only spoke their messages; they often acted them out. Isaiah walked around naked for 3 years to show the humiliation coming to the Egyptians and Cushites when the Assyrians took them into exile (Isaiah 20). Today Isaiah would be accused of public nudity and probably put in jail. Ezekiel laid on his left side in the road for 390 days in mock siege to signify the length in years Israel would suffer God’s judgment. Today Ezekiel would be accused of mental illness and hospitalized. Jeremiah purchased real estate near Jerusalem only days prior to the fall of his nation to the Babylonians. Today Jeremiah would be accused of being a bad real estate investor. These prophetic acts were usually accompanied with an oracle (sermon) which explained what was happening and why, from God’s point of view. By today’s standards many prophetic acts would be considered anti-social at least and perhaps even criminal.

When Jesus entered the temple he began to drive out those who sold and bought in outer court, the area where Gentiles were allowed to gather and worship (Mark 11:15-17 and par.). He overturned the tables of the moneychangers and did not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. Exactly what Jesus is objecting to is unclear, but together with the episode of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21) and the Olivet discourse (Mark 13) we may make some reasonable conclusions. First, pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem needed sacrificial animals to participate in the temple worship. Providing them with appropriate sacrifices was an important service. But why did they set up their business in the one area where the nations (outsiders) were allowed to worship? Couldn’t they have offered their services outside of the temple? Imagine the urine and feces which flowed down the pavements from the animals kept in cages and fences. Imagine the stench and the noise of commerce. Was this a house of prayer for all the nations? Furthermore, the temple area was so large that merchants apparently used the porticos and porches as a shortcut so they could save themselves a few steps. Jesus expressly forbade them from making such casual use of God’s house. Essentially, each of these actions violated the sanctity of the temple. The Mishnah Berakah 9.5 gives us some examples worthy of consideration: “One should not act silly while facing the Eastern Gate [of the Temple in Jerusalem] for it faces toward the Chamber of the Holy of Holies. One should not enter the Temple mount with his walking stick, his overshoes, his money bag, or with dust on his feet. And one should not use [the Temple mount] for a shortcut.” If these actions violated the sanctity of the temple, how much more setting up stalls, selling animals, and exchanging money.

Quoting Isa 56.7 and Jer 7.11, Jesus may well have told us why he acted. God’s house was to be a house of prayer for all the nations, but the temple authorities had made it into a den of robbers. As long as people used the temple courts as a cut-through and merchants set up shop selling animals where the nations were to gather for worship, the sanctity of the temple was in jeopardy. Instead of being a place where the humble and repentant assembled, the temple porticos had become a haunt for criminals.

Do not forget that in Jesus’ day anti-temple sentiments were running high. The high priesthood had been bought and sold by scoundrels, and many faithful Jews had withdrawn completely from the temple.

Jesus’ actions in the temple that day are best understood as a prophetic act intended to portray the coming destruction of the temple. Jesus was not “cleansing the temple,” he was pronouncing divine judgment against it. He did so in a big, unforgettable way. But hyperbole characterized Jesus’ teaching all along: “If your right hand offends you, cut it off throw it away.” Was Jesus advocating self-mutilation or was he driving home a point about the seriousness of sin? Obviously, the latter is the case. Jesus was not advocating violence against oneself. When Jesus overturned the tables, scattered the animals, and put an end to that day’s commerce, he was acting out in one place what the Romans would do across the entire temple mount 40 years later. A few days after the temple incident, Jesus gave a sermon called “the Olivet discourse” which described in some detail the events prior to and during the fall of Jerusalem.

I do not think Jesus acted violently that day in the temple anymore than Isaiah was acting lasciviously in his own day. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi considered Jesus a great example of non-violence and so should we. These modern prophets in their own way inspired movements which shocked the world and profoundly shaped it.

4 Comments

I wouldn’t necessarily consider it violence in the same context as we do today in the US. When we think of Holy Wrath…is that a passive act or idea? I surely don’t think so. I think violence (or perhaps better expressed in this case as passionate aggression) is not wrong if it is not victimizing, but instead defending the honor or life of a person or something sacred as it did in Jesus’ case.

We recently saw in the news a man who killed another man he found about to rape his 4 year old daughter. He is not only NOT considered a violent criminal, but praised as a hero. Is not beating another human being to death violent and criminal? Not in this circumstance. I think in the same way Jesus is not to be considered violent or criminal for defending the honor and sanctity of the temple.

I once delivered a sermon on this subject matter. Unique to John’s narrative, Jesus actually took the time to make a whip. That’s interesting! Perhaps he watched from a distance in anger while making it. We don’t exactly know. But he felt strongly enough about it to lash it together with his own hands.

For Jesus to be truly violent, Jesus would have has to injure someone. This was not the case. Were some business dealing disrupted? Seems that way. Might some have has to collect their coins thrown to the ground? Seems logical. But this does not make Jesus violent.

I appreciate Dr. Capes answers to this questions. We would be wise to ask ourselves: would Jesus need to “turn the tables” in our churches?